World 2.0/1 Map [Quenched]

[happysadfun]

replace brunei with sabah

[Marvaddin]

Bonus of 12 would be too much. Maybe not in escalating games, but in flat rate and specially no cards, game over. No one would get another continent. But, the games would last 2 centuries before someone hold a continent, too. No... continents that big arent good, I think, lets make more than 6 continents, friend.

About countries:
I still think Cote Divoire has a big name and would be better remove it.
Central America? Please, please change that name...
Do you really want those insignificant things like Tierra del Fuego in the map? Use the big ones is my suggestion.
In Asia, I think would be better having Russia splitted than those minor countries like Sri Lanka, and mainly Taiwan and Malaysia (lets use simplest routes in those points?)
Ok, you want split Indonesia, but 4 is too much, isnt it?
How about to use Antartic? It will not be an accurate one without it! The territories can be named France possession or something alike.

[gavin_sidhu]

replace brunei with sabat

Im guessing you mean Sabah? The region he/she called Brunei contains the east malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak, as well as Brunei. The land was all part of Brunei until British came and took it and gave it to Malaysia. My ancestors lived in Malaysia and i think it should be called Brunei, as its the real world map and should have more country names then state names in it.

[wcaclimbing]

Bonus of 12 would be too much.

that bonus really isnt that much, considering with 114 countries and 6 people, each person would get 6 armies on their first turn.

that difference between bonus and initial armies isnt that big considering in classic map you get 3 armies to start and the largest bonus is 7.

3/7 is more of a change than 6/12

[losrivas]

I really like the idea of this map. I have a couple suggestions:

1. This map needs more continents. More continents would help the game progress faster but would solve the problem of Africa being too valuble. Possible splits:

Africa = North Africa + Sub-Saharan Africa
Asia = Middle East + Orient + Former Soviet Union (would have to split up Russia some more)
Europe could remain as is, it would be the Mother Load, the equivalent of Asia on the Classic map, i.e. take Europe = Total Domination

Crazy idea I had: What if there were some non-adjacent connections, like in the Philipines map? That would add to the "Modernity" of the map, since countries that are adjacent to each other aren't necessarily the ones fighting these days. What if USA had "aerial" connections to other spots on the globe, like the Middle East or Korea? That would give USA more borders without adding more territories, and make North America a more valuable continent. Another idea that was proposed earlier was to give some more powerful countries an additional bonus, like the US or China, etc. These little bonuses could help the game move along quicker even before any continents have been secured.

What do you think?

[zim]

Again thanks for all the suggestions and comments. See responses and updated map incorporating suggestions below.

Marvaddin wrote:
About countries:
I still think Cote Divoire has a big name and would be better remove it.
Central America? Please, please change that name...
Do you really want those insignificant things like Tierra del Fuego in the map? Use the big ones is my suggestion.
In Asia, I think would be better having Russia splitted than those minor countries like Sri Lanka, and mainly Taiwan and Malaysia (lets use simplest routes in those points?)
Ok, you want split Indonesia, but 4 is too much, isnt it?
How about to use Antartic? It will not be an accurate one without it! The territories can be named France possession or something alike.

Thanks for your comments/suggestions...

I'm ambivalent about Cote D'Ivoire, it's in the current rev as I don't want to delete countries if I don't "have to" for space, etc., but it's not strategically or geo-politically important so I'll go with the consensus.

I've changed Central America for Guatemala (it's the largest population of the countries that I merged to create what was "Central America" in the last rev.) but let me know because if someone strongly wants Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, etc. I'd be happy to change it.

Tierra Del Fuego mainly to allow a southern route between the continents without giving South America two borders down there (Chile & Argentina).

On the Russia split versus Sri Lanka, etc., my bias is to use real countries wherever possible and only create, merge or seperate territories where necessary for fit or game play/game balance. So I'd keep Asia largely the way it is. Might delete one or two more of the tiny countries (nepal, bangladesh, etc.) if required for continental balance but at the moment I'm content with Asia.

On Indonesia I could put pieces of Indonesia back togther but to maintain balance I think I'd then have to split Australia into more pieces to keep the number of territoires the same. Is this what you'd like to see?

I've left Antarctica off as I didn't feel it add anything to the strategic situation that wasn't achieved by the sea lanes between continents in the south. My thinking was/is that Antarctica would have four or five subdivision (American, British, French, Russian or perhaps named for geographic features) and that these would be bordered by New Zealand/Australia, South Africa and Tierra Del Feugo and that I'd eliminate the direct southern tip to southern tip connections. If that was the case then I expect the optimal strategy would be for the holders of those continents to 'push' their borders out one territory into Antarctica the way a South America player tries to hold North Africa in Classic and that given theere are three of these potential border extenders holding Antrartcia would be untenable unless it had an artificially high bonus. Thoughts?

Marvaddin also wrote:
Bonus of 12 would be too much. Maybe not in escalating games, but in flat rate and specially no cards, game over. No one would get another continent. But, the games would last 2 centuries before someone hold a continent, too. No... continents that big arent good, I think, lets make more than 6 continents, friend.

Wcaclimbing wrote:
that bonus really isnt that much, considering with 114 countries and 6 people, each person would get 6 armies on their first turn.

that difference between bonus and initial armies isnt that big considering in classic map you get 3 armies to start and the largest bonus is 7.

3/7 is more of a change than 6/12

Losrivas wrote:

1. This map needs more continents. More continents would help the game progress faster but would solve the problem of Africa being too valuble. Possible splits:

Africa = North Africa + Sub-Saharan Africa
Asia = Middle East + Orient + Former Soviet Union (would have to split up Russia some more)
Europe could remain as is, it would be the Mother Load, the equivalent of Asia on the Classic map, i.e. take Europe = Total Domination

I'd really prefer not to create sub continents given the goal of approximating reality as best I can. I think the extra continents comments and the bonus armies comments are both about trying to strike the "right" balance for playability. I've thought about this some more and my feeling is that this map given it's size is likely to appeal to people looking for something of an 'epic' battle and that the "right" balance (for this map) is to let them have it. Given that premise I've lowered the bonuses on this version while (I hope) preserving the balance of power between the continents. I'm not solid on this however so let me know what you think though I am feeling that the question may be unanswerable until we play test things.

Current table looks like:
Continent -Countries/Borders/Bonus/(Bonus/Country)/(Bonus/Border)
North America -13/4/3/0.23/0.75
South America -12/4/3/0.25 /0.75
Africa -27/6/6/0.22/1.00
Europe -17/5/4/0.24/0.80
Asia -24/9/7/0.29/0.78
Oceania -11/4/3/0.27/0.75

losrivas also wrote:
Crazy idea I had: What if there were some non-adjacent connections, like in the Philipines map? That would add to the "Modernity" of the map, since countries that are adjacent to each other aren't necessarily the ones fighting these days. What if USA had "aerial" connections to other spots on the globe, like the Middle East or Korea? That would give USA more borders without adding more territories, and make North America a more valuable continent. Another idea that was proposed earlier was to give some more powerful countries an additional bonus, like the US or China, etc. These little bonuses could help the game move along quicker even before any continents have been secured.

p gizzle wrote:
what if you didnt base bonuses off strategic power, but power in the real world. Like, what you could do, or even me, is rank the countries by order of power right now. like, US could be 1 and etc. then you add up all the numbers. the continent with the lowest number would have the highest bonus and so on

On the aerial connections and the strategic power questions I don't think I could achieve a realistic or accurate implementation given my map making skills, the constraints of the Conquer Club engine and our collective wisdom of where power can be projected by US, Russia, EU, etc.

On the sub-continents having mini bonuses I think this essentially get's us back to the more continents issue which if I can get balance by other means I'd prefer to avoid.


Thanks again everyone for your comments/suggestions I think we're getting somewhere...

Cheers,

Zim

[AndyDufresne]

Well I was unsure about this map at the start, but you've been actually able to get it off the ground. It's still far away from completion in my eyes, but you're the only person thus far that has actively taken a stab at creating this map. A few others had ideas, but few actually put pen to paper.

I'll hopefully have more time to look over it in detail later, but as I noticed you mentioned you didn't have Antartica, but perhaps you can make it similar to the 'Quad' in the CCU map--apart of no continent, due to the fact it is only 'loosely' claimed by a few countries. It would also perhaps make the seat routes along the bottom of the map a more realistic. I.E. Short voyages over long voyages. Something to consider.


--Andy

[Marvaddin]

I definetely think we should have Antarctica, the greater problem is Antarctica being the easier continent and making impossible to hold others. If we have it, you can remove Tierra del Fuego

About splitting Australia - Indonesia, Im sure Australia is better... 4 countries to Indonesia and 2 to Australia doesnt sound logical to me.

I see your point about still use Sri Lanka, Taiwan, etc. But remember, they will not be visible with the numbers over them. Taiwan and Malaysia, then, will be terrible, because player will not know easily to what continents they belong, these countries will cause confusion, I think.

How about this:
We can have small continents, like USA, Canada, with normal small bonuses, and if you hold the real continent (all North America, in this case), you get an extra bonus. So we can have both ideas in one, and add a new level of strategy. Im now imagining the funny things like 2 players, one holding Middle East, and other holding Russia, both fighting for Asia... wow, regional rivalry!!
If you want I think I can help to arrange the idea next weekend.

[Scorba]

I agree with Marv, a two tier bonus system is a must here. The continents as they stand will be impossible to take and hold, and without the need to attack to break your opponent's bonuses all your going to get is a glorified build game. Splitting each continent up in to several regions will increase the playability & strategic depth of the map massively. It will also allow you to break up that Asian Russia monstrosity without compromising on the political accuracy of the map, with Russia as a region rather a country (European Russia could be part of both Eastern Europe and Russia regions, which would be another interesting game mechanic).

The map could also do with some impassable borders to increase the number of bottlenecks. Africa in particular is in dire need of this, South America and Asia too to a lesser extent.

[gavin_sidhu]

On the Russia split versus Sri Lanka, etc., my bias is to use real countries wherever possible and only create, merge or seperate territories where necessary for fit or game play/game balance. So I'd keep Asia largely the way it is. Might delete one or two more of the tiny countries (nepal, bangladesh, etc.) if required for continental balance but at the moment I'm content with Asia.

On Indonesia I could put pieces of Indonesia back togther but to maintain balance I think I'd then have to split Australia into more pieces to keep the number of territoires the same. Is this what you'd like to see?

I've left Antarctica off as I didn't feel it add anything to the strategic situation that wasn't achieved by the sea lanes between continents in the south. My thinking was/is that Antarctica would have four or five subdivision (American, British, French, Russian or perhaps named for geographic features) and that these would be bordered by New Zealand/Australia, South Africa and Tierra Del Feugo and that I'd eliminate the direct southern tip to southern tip connections. If that was the case then I expect the optimal strategy would be for the holders of those continents to 'push' their borders out one territory into Antarctica the way a South America player tries to hold North Africa in Classic and that given theere are three of these potential border extenders holding Antrartcia would be untenable unless it had an artificially high bonus. Thoughts?

Zim

I like the way you think. I think you should make Antartica, would be a good addition.

Put Australia back together, if you want more territories there are countless island nations you couold add, eg. the Solomon Islands (which are those islands you have marked to the east of Papua New Gunei), East Timor, Micronesia, Fiji etc. . Make a connection between New Caledonia and New Zealand and Solomon Islands if you add them. If you have to split up Australia (dont think you should), make tasmania a country and keep Australia mainland whole. There is no reason to split Oceania countries up, there are so many of them.

Get rid of the connection between Australia and South Africa and add the maldives (which are sortof in the middle of the Indian Ocean) and connect Australia to Maldives to Madagascar or some other African nation. I think Hawaii and the Bahamas would be good additions to remove the split of USA countries (why split up the US in 4 if you only split Russia in 2?).

Also change the way you split Canada and Russia, the vertical line looks ugly.

[spiesr]

Put Australia back together, if you want more territories there are countless island nations you couold add, eg. the Solomon Islands (which are those islands you have marked to the east of Papua New Gunei), East Timor, Micronesia, Fiji etc. . Make a connection between New Caledonia and New Zealand and Solomon Islands if you add them. If you have to split up Australia (dont think you should), make tasmania a country and keep Australia mainland whole. There is no reason to split Oceania countries up, there are so many of them.

No More Little Islands! They are going to be a huge pain latter.

[happysadfun]

replace brunei with sabat

Im guessing you mean Sabah? The region he/she called Brunei contains the east malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak, as well as Brunei. The land was all part of Brunei until British came and took it and gave it to Malaysia. My ancestors lived in Malaysia and i think it should be called Brunei, as its the real world map and should have more country names then state names in it.

Ok, i just saw "sabah" on a map and thought that waas the name for northern brunei.

[steve monkey]

Nairobi is a city not a country, it should be changed to Kenya. Also, it's ridiculous to call a territory Rhodesia since it ceased to exist over 30 years ago. Likewise, French colonial rule over West Africa is long gone. These would be anachronistic in a 'realistic' 'modern' world map.

[N0g]

maybe, since you included Alaska, include Hawaii. There would only be one way in, from Indonesia, and one way out, to US

You mean Japan, not Indonesia.

Overall I like it, it's giving Europe a run for its money for the map where continents become insignificant quickly (in escalating cards game).

[P Gizzle]

maybe, since you included Alaska, include Hawaii. There would only be one way in, from Indonesia, and one way out, to US

You mean Japan, not Indonesia.

Overall I like it, it's giving Europe a run for its money for the map where continents become insignificant quickly (in escalating cards game).

no, indonesia. the Hawaiians came from Polynesia, which, i believe, is parts of indonesia and New Zealand etc. They are not Japanese